Forum Topic

"New" cycle route PCN 15

Having looked at the route as outlined on the front page I am at a loss to see what exactly is new about this route. It is one that I have cycled along for decades when out and about.Anyway I have no particular issue with it other than I sincerely hope it's not festooned with lots of utterly unnecessary signs in the same way the lit route from Chiswick Mall to Barnes Bridge is.

Adrian Irving ● 418d44 Comments

I do have some sympathy with the objections to the plans for the Pissaro site as the building is at least a storey too high. Presumably on the benches they were put in and paid for by estate management who decided to remove them when they felt they were attracting unwelcome behaviour rather than people just sitting there. The same principle applies with access. It may well prove that it is within their power to remove it so it is in everyone's interest to discourage misuse of this area (not that I have witnessed much).

Felicity Caborn ● 402d

The benches were removed  a while back as they didn't like the thought of other people sitting on their "private property" . They fought tooth and nail to prevent apartments replacing a defunct restaurant so watch this space, anything is possible.

Adrian Irving ● 408d

The insinuation that the council was somehow complicit in allowing the gates to be installed at Brentford Docks is unfair. They fought very hard against it and only abandoned the attempt after legal advice that it would be impossible to stop it happening. I don't know whether there is enough similarity between the two cases to put the Chiswick stretch of the riverside path at risk but the council appear to be trying to placate the landowner which is probably sensible. I don't believe this is a serious enough problem to provide any justification for gating off the path but it probably shouldn't be discounted completely.

Felicity Caborn ● 408d

As I understand it, you can apply for planning permission to build a block of flats where someone else’s house is, presumably on the basis that, only once you know you’ve got the planning permission would you want to buy the site. Getting speculative planning permissions seems to be encouraged, as even when you’ve got planning permission for something, you’re not obliged to go ahead and build it.

Peter Evans ● 409d

I was really quite surprised when I read about this.That said, and thinking about it later on, planning permission doesn’t expire when a property with planning permission is sold on, as far as I know, so maybe what I wrote was true.As for my other thoughts about it, I would think it’s bl**dy cheeky for someone to do this unsolicited! I reckon almost everyone would.

Andrew Jones ● 409d

What’s your thoughts on this Andrew ?“Someone could apply for planning permission to build an extension etc. to someone else's house/property”

Maggie Dodge ● 409d

I believe it was private land so they had "the right" though possibly (probably?) there may have been planning permission considerations.As an aside, as I understand it, planning permission doesn't need the person applying for it to have title to the land and/or own the property.Someone could apply for planning permission to build an extension etc. to someone else's house/property. Just because the applicant doesn't own it it wouldn't in itself be grounds to refuse planning permission. Obviously they wouldn't be able to legally build anything without the owner's consent, even if planning permission was granted.  That's my understanding anyway (so it could well be wrong), and I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows a lot more about the subject!

Andrew Jones ● 409d

"Managed to install gates." Did they have a right to do this or did they know the right person at the Council?

Maggie Dodge ● 409d

I'd forgotten about the Brentford Docks case but it probably does have some bearing on what is happening here.Hopefully, this is just a case of the owners of the Thames Crescent Estate flexing their muscle and getting the council to take action on people ignoring their signs. I'd entirely agree with your principle Adrian but it is one that the council tried very hard to uphold in Brentford and failed. The possibility of private riverside access for residents and to hell with the rest of us might be a tempting one.

Mark Evans ● 412d

I didn't know about Brentford Docks but it sounds like another case of wagon circling.Perhaps they should have just employed a uniformed heavy to deal with the great unwashed. Not.Ideological I have an issue with a small group of people having exclusive access to the riverside where other solutions could be found or it cannot be justified in the first place.

Adrian Irving ● 412d

Mark, the precedent is from Brentford Docks were the management of the estate has managed to install gates to restrict access to riverside walks to residents only.

Felicity Caborn ● 412d

Felicity, what do you mean when you say that a precedent has been created?

Mark Evans ● 413d

That horse has bolted unfortunately and a precedent has now been created which would allow the path to be closed off. It wouldn't be a huge surprise if it turned out that this new 'Priority Cycle Network' was an attempt to placate the estate management.They do have a point though, this section is quite narrow and conflicts do occur when it is busy. The only time I have had a problem is with a hire bike. As I say, I think that people using them are disinclined to get off and push when the footpath is crowded because they are so heavy.

Felicity Caborn ● 415d

Good Post Felicity.During the Summer weekends all the riverside paths get busy however that's no reason to ban cycling is it. Form my experience with some residents of gated communities I am sure they would love to block all access. It's a wagon circling mind set and very good reason why title should have been retained by Hounslow.

Adrian Irving ● 416d

Adrian, with regard to your point about there being little conflict between pedestrians and cyclist on this part of the Thames Path, I would agree this is correct for most of the year. I rarely see cyclists using it and, if they do so when it is a quiet part of the day then what harm really particularly as the restriction is unenforceable?It does become an issue on sunny days when the path is crowded and there are also lots of leisure cyclists mainly on Santander or Lime bikes. As I speculated previously, there may be routes posted some where on the internet by 'influencers' recommending this as a great way to see the river and they are not wrong. It may be these people are confused by the signage or they may be well aware that they shouldn't be on their bikes but these hire bikes are heavy so they don't want to push them but they do seem to make up most of those ignoring the rules. The stretch by Thames Crescent is private land so it may be within the discretion of the management company to close this section off to everyone as has recently happened in Brentford in a similar situation. I don't for one second believe that this would be justified, the problem isn't that severe, but if they were looking for an excuse, this could be it.

Felicity Caborn ● 416d

I think it’s mostly cyclists commenting Paul

Maggie Dodge ● 416d

You’d think that some signs advising cyclists of a quiet route would be uncontroversial. But no Chiswick’s velophobes will strain hard to find reasons to object to even the least intrusive change to streets.

Paul Campbell ● 417d

‘Priority Cycle Network Route 15 will link Richmond and Chiswick allowing cyclists to avoid areas of heavy traffic’. However pleasant this riverside circuit might be, it’s hardly a practical ‘route’ between those two places, and should be left as it is, rather than being used as some signposted ‘make the world a better place’ bit of virtue signalling by the Council.

Peter Evans ● 417d

Oh do tell some amusing anecdotes about illegal signs that cyclists can ignore Paul.

Maggie Dodge ● 417d

It's too narrow at the eastern end  were it exits on to The Mall and a pinch point just past the Lifeboat Station other wise there is room for considerate cyclists.

Adrian Irving ● 417d

Even I think that the river path is not suitable as shared space there because it is too narrow and the conflict with pedestrians is too great. I feel the same about SOTG where the signs can be enforced, although I would always advocate for scarce public resources to be spent on the greatest sources of actual harm and danger rather than nuisances i.e. drivers.

Paul Campbell ● 417d

I have to say I cycle along the river paths probably more than most. Up into Central London along the south side of the river and in the other direction into Richmond.My point being there are miles of shared use paths (people/cyclists) which co-exist with little or no serious problems.Frankly I don't see why the stretch we are discussing should be any different.I live nearby and pass that way walking or cycling on average three times a week for many years. Never have I seen an issue of furious cycling however the same can't be said for some furious people overreacting to a passing cyclists.When the land was sold the Council made a big mistake in not retaing title to this area.

Adrian Irving ● 417d

I didn't say anything about fines. The point is that the signs are not enforceable in any way. You can't have the public purse employing people to tell cyclists to dismount because a private company put up their own signs on their private property. The cyclists are within their rights to just say no.As you've probably discovered lots of cyclists are aware that these signs are not legally enforceable. I've even had a few amusing discussions myself when on foot and been surprised by how knowledgeable they are!

Paul Campbell ● 417d

Given that they don't seem to be able to provide personnel to catch cyclists jumping red lights on CHR, it seems unlikely that they will send someone to keep an eye on the river path.

Richard Greenhough ● 417d

Although it may not be possible to issue fines on the privately owned part of the river path, enforcement officers can still act as a deterrent. Raising revenue shouldn't always be a precondition of action being taken. As I understand it, the Hammersmith employees rarely issue fines just offer advice.I've stopped asking cyclists to dismount after some unpleasant incidents but the presence of a uniformed person will encourage people to follow the signs.

Diane Brown ● 417d

Very good point Bernard.Frankly I would rather take my chances staying besides the river than walk along a very dimly lit alley well known for muggers and with little footfall compared to the riverside path.

Adrian Irving ● 417d

"I believe the small signs at each end saying 'No Cycling' with a line through a bike are non-standard and placed there by the management company of the estate which owns this section of the Thames Path"Yes. And as such they are unenforceable. The Council cannot employ enforcement officers to enforce these signs. So they've done the best they can do to divert cyclists via Pumping Station Road which is far better for cyclists as well as pedestrians.

Paul Campbell ● 417d

Yes,but its a bit long-winded with so many side roads. You could make the surface more better on the thames path from kew onwards.

Julian Pavey ● 418d

Diane, I think you would better if you employed a dog warden.The stretch between St Nicolas and the meadow is a minefield of dog mess. On this section owners feel safe to let their dog off the lead them wander along chatting to a friend without out paying any attention to their dog doing its business behind them.I have counted up to a dozen piles of poo along that short strech.Not nice, not nice at all.

Adrian Irving ● 418d

Maggie, I'm not saying we should be complacent about this rather that we have to accept that there is a high chance that some of the people cycling on this section genuinely will have no idea they are doing something they shouldn't be.Rather than trying to provide yet another long and tedious exchange with Michael over C9 perhaps open your mind to the fact that an attempt is being made to solve a problem that will make one of the joys of living in Chiswick even more joyful.

Felicity Caborn ● 418d

That’s strange, approximately two years ago Hounslow Council decided to create a safe cycle / pedestrian route from Barnes bridge to Hammersmith.LBOH erected large blue and white signs diverting cyclists and pedestrians away from the Promenade on Dukes Meadows as there was no lighting along that stretch of river front.So the signs divert you from Barnes railway bridge, pass Virgin Active into Barnes alley, then off the alley into Staveley Gardens across Riverside Drive into Alexandra Gardens, then you exit at. Edensor Road to eventually join the cycle way at Pump Lane. That route was decide as a safe route by Hounslow Council because it had street lighting along the route. I wonder how all of a sudden a very dark stretch  of Foot path / Road has become safe again ?

Bernard Allen ● 418d

Julian, there is a cycle lane running along the A316 besides the pavement all the way to Richmond.

Adrian Irving ● 418d

I believe the small signs at each end saying 'No Cycling' with a line through a bike are non-standard and placed there by the management company of the estate which owns this section of the Thames Path. The diversion still goes through private roads but with the blessing of the estate owners.I really do hope this discourages people from cycling by the river here. When you are less steady on your feet, people flying past you on bikes is a major disincentive from walking here particularly during the summer. I'd like to applaud the council and the various other groups involved in making progress on this and I hope Francis is right about the technology aspect and it makes a real difference. However, if it does not, then other measures such as the use of enforcement officers such as those employed further up the Thames Path by Hammersmith Council must be considered.

Diane Brown ● 418d

Whats the route for richmond. Is that along the rockery footpath or the cycle lane that stops at the end of kew bridge and starts after kew garden road. ?

Julian Pavey ● 418d

Sounds like a good idea Francis. Using this route you can cycle all the way to Richmond off the main carriage way. Having said that the cycle lane after Chiswick Bridge is less than ideal. Hopeless, if I'm honest.

Adrian Irving ● 418d

Peter, no doubt you are right.There is a small no cycling sign (good thing) at each end of the walkway with a sub text warning cyclists that the surface is slippery and therefore unsuitable to ride on.A new walkway with a slippery surface? I had to laugh.

Adrian Irving ● 418d

One of the reasons for designing the path as a cycle lane of sorts (besides making the powers that be look good and boosting stats, which we all love) is that Google Maps will also pick it up and thus will offer it to those navigating through that application.TfL is doing a fair bit of work with Google to improve navigation prompts for cyclists, so that it stops suggesting roads like the North Circular (seen it happen!) and uses, instead, whatever bit of infrastructure and quiet roads that exist. If something has been designated as a cycle lane that will enable Google to pick it up.

Francis Sheehan ● 418d

I imagine no amount of signs will stop cyclists trying to use the new elevated Thames Path walkway under Barnes bridge rather than the longer ‘official route’ under the old tunnel, and with no monitoring or enforcement, why bother with signs at all?

Peter Evans ● 418d

There was no press release.Information was posted as a “key decision” on the Hounslow website and local media clearly thought “Wow, this must be important”. The reality was the project was one of several dozen covered by a key decision on funding 3 years ago so because of some impenetrable administrative reason, the information needed needed to be classified as a “key decision” too.If it hadn’t been for that, the information would have been stuck in the middle of    standard decisions and I’d put money that local media would never have noticed it.

Michael Robinson ● 418d

Michael, when you say local media has over reported I'm not sure what you mean.Surely the information, illustrations etc came from Hounslow in the form of a press release.Instead of pointing the finger at the media maybe Hounslow have over dressed the information they released.

Adrian Irving ● 418d

Felicity, you will appreciate motorists are heavily penalised for misunderstanding signs, so I don’t think we should be blasé about cyclists not understanding signs. As for Michael, I think he’ll find C9 is as hated as it ever was, as are the Hammersmith and Brentford extensions. Facebook groups are full of complaints

Maggie Dodge ● 418d

I think there must be something on Instagram or maybe on Trip Advisor that recommends to tourists to do this route by hire bike because you see so many during the summer. You can't really blame them for misinterpreting the sign particularly as many of them seem to be very young and probably don't drive and it is inherently confusing if you don't know your highway code.The position of the Old Chiswick Protection Society is understandable but I'm glad to see that they gave way on this one as it should make a difference during the summer.

Felicity Caborn ● 418d

Michael, if you read the article you'll see it does actually say it is just some signs.Like Adrian, this is exactly the route I would already have taken on this section of the Thames Path but it is amazing how many people, more often than not on Santander or Lime bikes, who seem to thing a bike sign in a red circle indicates a cycle path.Relying on people having local knowledge to know the legitimately cycleable alternative route isn't a great idea so the new signs will be welcome.

Mark Evans ● 418d

There isn't anything new, it is just some signs.As I understand it, the project was one of a list covered by a 'key decision' by Hounslow back in 2021 therefore administratively, it was published as a 'key decision' on the Hounslow website even though it is just signs. Local media has somewhat over-reported what it actually involves... perhaps in the hope of stirring up clickbait which has died down regarding C9.

Michael Robinson ● 418d